Jump to content

Fallout Of Super-hero Indie Movies At Sdcc


chezvid

Recommended Posts

Its just a application of reserved rights in regards to public showings of copywritten material.

 

Every video cassette and DVD has these warning on them and they protect the license holder --the Convention can secure permission from the license holder for authorized viewings of their material, BUT these films were made without authorization from the copyright holders and are in violation of that IF they are shown.

 

This is the core reason right here:

"Apparently, the core issue is that Comic-Con charges admission to the convention, where the fan films are screened on-site. So, the convention organizers could be viewed as profiting from these infringing works."

 

 

Because SDCC is seen to be a for-profit effort, its obliged to seek a licensing agreement to show these films, or any commercial films. Because the films are made by fans based on copywritten material owned by someone else makes it an even stickier legal headache.

 

 

Sure its a pain in the ass, but the law that let's Warner Bros say "no" also lets you say "no" when it comes to your material being used without your permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the law and understand it...Still its not like the makers of these movies are saying, "Hey this is my movie and i should direct the next batman not you!" Comic Con is for the fans, and its for the fans to show thier support to thier fan favs....thats like saying people cant walk around in costumes and take pics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the law and understand it...Still its not like the makers of these movies are saying, "Hey this is my movie and i should direct the next batman not you!" Comic Con is for the fans, and its for the fans to show thier support to thier fan favs....thats like saying people cant walk around in costumes and take pics...

I agree.

 

or how about the fans that make custom figures of mattel toys or hasbro toys? in the future they won't be able to show them either? that's just dumb. WB is just doing what corporate america does best.

 

WB should let this guy show his movie, it may help people get interest on seeing their stupid-a$$ catwoman movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the law and understand it...Still its not like the makers of these movies are saying, "Hey this is my movie and i should direct the next batman not you!" Comic Con is for the fans, and its for the fans to show thier support to thier fan favs....thats like saying people cant walk around in costumes and take pics...

So you'd like exceptions to the law just for your own conspicuous consumption? The fans get special exemption?

 

 

So, why not retailers too?

 

 

Why not manufacturers as well??

 

Geez there's all kinds of people that would welcome being allowed to use this stuff whenever they like, if a precedent in law allows it--and that's what this is about. It has to be challenged or a precedent exists to defeat it--and exceptions and exemptions can lead to the defeat of such protections.

 

Some of these filmmakers ARE using these films as portfolio items to gain admission to the industry, or secure other jobs.

 

SDCC is not just for the fans, there's a sizable retailer and industry element to it as well, and because of that the "just for the fans" notion doesn't wash.

As for the costumes--weak example, I'm afraid, because the costume is mobile like the person and can be seen to be outside of a venue and can be argued as being a individual's personal dress. A film requires an enclosed space and specific set-up to be viewed and when it is offered to others to see it conforms to a "public showing" when admission is charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Arrow...1st off i dont need a lesson in American Law...2nd all im saying is why all of the sudden now...as far as the costumes being a weak example i dont think so...say me and my friends dress up as batman and some of the rouges gallery and then start acting out scenes from the comic or scenes that we wrote in public, technically by your definiton of law we are in the wrong! I think its fishy that this guy cant show his version of batman...ok granted he doesnt have the DC stamp...but if WB,AOL,DC,TimeWaner doesnt want someone to show their talent isnt that a breach of the constitutional right...i wouldnt see why they couldnt pay a couple of bucks to say hey this is my passion let me show it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, fan art, and unsolicited art that fans bring in to have a portfolio review are under the same guidelines, and they're allowed to do that......

 

I don't see how the movie is any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that answered the question I had a few weeks back on how this guy was allowed to make these Batman movies. I wouldn't start to cry for him, this hype will make his movie more saught after.

As far as WB goes, they don't own the rights to these superheros for fun, they own them for a reason. They know if this movie somehow made this guy a fortune, others would no doubt follow... then what would be the point of copyrights and trademarks? It isnt about you or your friends dressing up like Superman and acting out a scene in public, or custom figures on Ebay or whatever... If someone was mass producing a Batman comic, they would do the same thing. If this guy just wanted this film made for the fans, it would only be shown at comic con, and never again... we all know it will end up in some form on Ebay, even if he isnt the one selling it... that is why WB is stepping in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is this:

 

Showing them at a convention means that only people who paid to get into the convention get to see it. From a legal standpoint, this means that you're in essense paying admission to see the movie...just like in a movie theater.

 

Believe it or not, if WB doesn't challenge that on an ongoing basis, they could lose their right to do so. It's more complicated than that, and I don't pretend that I understand it all, but that's the nuts and bolts of it.

 

Warner's isn't saying "Don't make movies", they're just saying you can't show them someplace that you pay to get into. I don't see why that's such a bad thing. I mean, if they really wanted to, they could easily and legally stop people from doing so at all, lest they face a long, drawn out, very expensive, court battle. They just want to minimize the points where letting people do the movies could cause them problems later.

 

If DC didn't go to these conventions, it might be a non-issue...but they do, and will continue to do so, so they litterally can't ignore it. It would be like the TRU employee watching you steal that one and only Joker you've ever found retail but just can't afford to pay for right now, and doing nothing about it. Trust me, if they wanted to get nasty about it, they could. But they're not. They're doing what they have to do to make sure their end is covered, and if people want to make stuff and distribute it for free, then more power to them. It's free advertising, and usually pretty entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Arrow...1st off i dont need a lesson in American Law...2nd all im saying is why all of the sudden now...as far as the costumes being a weak example i dont think so...say me and my friends dress up as batman and some of the rouges gallery and then start acting out scenes from the comic or scenes that we wrote in public, technically by your definiton of law we are in the wrong! I think its fishy that this guy cant show his version of batman...ok granted he doesnt have the DC stamp...but if WB,AOL,DC,TimeWaner doesnt want someone to show their talent isnt that a breach of the constitutional right...i wouldnt see why they couldnt pay a couple of bucks to say hey this is my passion let me show it....

If you don't understand why Time/Warner isn't entitle to exercise their proprietary rights with THEIR characters ( re: their property) then you need a lesson in copyright law.

 

Which, by the way, is international--Berne Copyright Convention.

 

What part of the Constitution breaches that? Freedom of expression doesn't apply when its someone else's property you are making your expression with.

 

 

Technically, YES, wearing costumes of a trademarked likeness are deemed a violation of the copyright/trademark, but there remains a instance where the courts deem a infringing "work" of limited means--basically ONE costume--is not worth prosecuting. A film is treated differently however, because even as a "one-time work" it can be copied over and over again--film media being considered a easily reproducible medium--or seen in a public venue to a mass audience. A costume is considered to be more difficult to reproduce.

It can also be argue in court that a costumed fan's body shape or features can constitute enough of a difference in the established likeness of a trademark character to be NOT in violation of trademark.

400lb Captain Kirk's anyone?

 

Now, if someone was mass producing large numbers of costumes for sale then they'd run into a problem......

 

Art is a bit different as well--as long as its not reproduced in a mass form--that is you are not making your own Batman comic for publication and distribution--then its fine and considered fair use.

 

As a one time piece, placed upon display, its considered safe.

Using characters for a portfolio piece , as part of a job application to a publisher, falls under their "request" for applications using their characters as a standard. Again, as long as the artists does not publish the images without permission its okay.

 

Films, where a displaying venue charges admission, are considered to be commercial, and are NOT considered a true one-time work. Odd distinction, I know.

 

The clear problem with some of these fan films lies in this: Batman: Dead End or Star Wars: Knightquest

Batman is a trademark and copywritten character owned by Time Warner. Using the NAME AND the LIKENESS violates the trademark. This is where the problem lies, the fans outright use the name and likeness specifically. If they did a film called Bat-Guy: Dead End...or Night of the Bat and changed the costume in some distinctive way, then the film could be considered to be a unique work, or even parody.

The fans making these things didn't to that, they played them straight and used the characters verbatim. Their desire to pay direct homage to the characters they love has created this problem with showing the works they have created to others.

Comprende'??

 

 

This is all a fiddly part of copyright law, one that's constantly being evaluated/challenged and judicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i was younger and didnt know any better id be upset and throw back and forth with you arrow just because the way you are typing at my responses sounds like your talking down to me, but i know what you are saying and im not arguing the fact of copywright law...i am very familar with copywright laws...all im saying is Fan Films were shown at previous cons right? All im tryin to say is why now? why stop them now....i understand that DC owns Batman and his symbol and his rouge galleries...and they need to get paid if someone uses it by law...if you ask me the franchise is at a high point(new tv show/ new movie), but at the same time they are at a low point (mattel toy lines many bat figs, batmobile recall) and i think if they pull the plug on the fan films it might turn off some people. Batman will live forever dont get me wrong, but it doesnt hurt to let the people have some say in some things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movies that were to be shown this year:

 

Batman: Madness by Bat In The Sun

Batman: Dark Justice by Bat In The Sun

World's Finest by Sandy Collora

Nightwing by Two Man Movies

Superman: Luthor For President by OCP Productions

Wonder Woman: Battle For Justice by Redcape Cinema

Punisher by Thanks But No Thanks Productions

Grayson by Untamed Cinema

 

These movies were slated to be shown, but after WB pull out, they were passed over. I know of some more that were sent in, but not to sure if they made the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE